Category Archives: News

Is there evidence of systemic racism in the United States?

Systemic racism is the idea that people can’t lift themselves out of poverty by making good decisions, because powerful groups in society that hold the poor down, regardless of their decisions. Do you think that America is a place where no matter what choices you make, you’ll never be able to be more prosperous? That’s what the leaders of Black Lives Matter think.

Here’s what Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, says in the New York Times (a former newspaper):

To summarize, none of the actions we are told black people must take if they want to “lift themselves” out of poverty and gain financial stability — not marrying, not getting educated, not saving more, not owning a home — can mitigate 400 years of racialized plundering.

Got that? It doesn’t matter what individual choices a non-white person takes in America, they’re going to be poor. The “systemic racism” of the powerful whites will always keep them down. Single motherhood doesn’t make people poor, and marriage doesn’t make people wealthier. Dropping out of high school doesn’t make you poor, and getting a Masters degree in computer science won’t make you wealthier.

But let’s take a look at the data from the 2019 Census, and see the evidence:

Income By Ethnicity in America
Income By Ethnicity in America

White people are doing a bad job of keeping non-whites down

Well, it looks like at least SOME people of color are able to do well in America despite all the “systemic racism” that keeps non-whites down. And do you know what those non-white groups at the top have in common? They’ve made good decisions, they’ve worked hard, they haven’t blamed other people when they fail, and they’ve saved their money instead of spending it on shiny junk.

Let’s look at some decisions that the non-whites who are prosperous have made, that those further down have not.

Asians marry before they have children, so the kids have two parentsAsians marry before they have children, so the kids have two parents

Education and marriage

This article is written by the far-left radical Nicholas Kristof, writing in the radically-leftist New York Times (a former newspaper).

Excerpt:

A new scholarly book, “The Asian American Achievement Paradox,” by Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou, notes that Asian-American immigrants in recent decades have started with one advantage: They are highly educated, more so even than the average American. These immigrants are disproportionately doctors, research scientists and other highly educated professionals.

It’s not surprising that the children of Asian-American doctors would flourish in the United States. But Lee and Zhou note that kids of working-class Asian-Americans often also thrive, showing remarkable upward mobility.

[…]There’s also evidence that Americans believe that A’s go to smart kids, while Asians are more likely to think that they go to hard workers… Asian-American kids are allowed no excuse for getting B’s — or even an A-. The joke is that an A- is an “Asian F.”

One reason Asians students do so well is because their parents are usually married:

Strong two-parent families are a factor, too. Divorce rates are much lower for many Asian-American communities than for Americans as a whole, and there’s evidence that two-parent households are less likely to sink into poverty and also have better outcomes for boys in particular.

American blacks have a 73% out-of-wedlock birth rate. A huge difference compared to Asians.

So, when Nikole Hannah-Jones tells you that education and marriage don’t matter, she’s just wrong.

Compound interest

Education and marriage are important, but so is saving your money. The wealthiest people in America are typically the ones who are experts at saving money early, and investing it. They know about the law of compound interest. If you invest money early and leave it alone, then it will grow into a fortune by the time you are read to stop working.

This graph explains compound interest:

Don't trust people with non-STEM degrees to tell you how to get richInvesting $24,000 from age 21 to 41 vs investing $24000 from age 47 to 67

What does Nikole Hannah-Jones say when she looks at that graph? She doesn’t think that saving money makes a difference to having more or less wealth. She thinks skin color determines whether saving money makes you wealthy or not. The graph clearly shows what we should be recommending to young people of color. They need to stop spending money and start saving it, and the earlier the better. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is, saving money early JUST WORKS.

Similarly, when she says that home ownership doesn’t make you more wealthy, this is just terrible advice. It’s always better to pay down your own mortgage (at least when interest rates are low like they are now) than to pay someone else rent. You have to live somewhere, and paying for your own home is better because it costs about the same as rent, and then you get to keep the home when you’re done paying for it.

Communism

Nikole Hannah-Jones does have a “solution” to disparities in wealth. Her solution is communism. She wants to transfer money from those who earn, to those who don’t. But we already have tried that in the 20st century and it resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people. That’s not my opinion, that’s all documented in a book published by Harvard University Press.

Socialism Communism Countries Per Capita GDP Income
Socialism Communism Countries Per Capita GDP Income

You don’t even have to read the book to know the truth – just look at countries that score low on the Index of Economic Freedom, and compare their GDP per capita to countries that score high on the Index of Economic Freedom. The more communist a nation goes, the less wealth there is for the citizens. That’s why people in Venezuela are eating zoo animals and selling their bodies in prostitution for food, while nearby capitalist countries like Panama and Chile prosper. Nikole Hannah-Jones wants to reduce economic freedom, but we know by looking at other countries that this lowers per-capita GDP.

There’s a lot more than could be said here, but the point is that we need to be telling American blacks to make decisions that match the decisions of other successful non-white communities in America. We need to start teaching young people basic economics so they don’t fall prey to charlatans.

Why don’t men go to church anymore? The decline of male church attendance

I most recently spent half a year at a PCA church, and then another half a year at a Southern Baptist church. I attended Sunday services as well as Wednesday night Bible study. I am now looking for a new church. For now, I just look around for a sermon I like and listen to that. In this post, I’ll explain why I think men don’t like church.

There are three areas where churches fail to attract men:

    1. Apologetics
    2. Feminism, sex and marriage
    3. Policy and current events

Apologetics

The PCA church discouraged me from becoming a member of the church because they said that conversion to Christianity due to reason and evidence was contrary to their teachings, and a “red flag”. Their words. I didn’t try to fight them on it, because they are Reformed Presbyterian, and this is their actual view. Their approach to apologetics was “pre-suppositional”, which is to say, they try to convince people to become Christians by asking them to assume that the Bible is infallible, without any argumentation or evidence. Naturally, this doesn’t work, so they aren’t trained to answer any serious questions from non-Christians. (1 Pet 3:15-16)

The Reformed Baptist SBC church is led by people like Russell Moore and Al Mohler, who take the “magic words” approach to evangelism. I.e. – they think that people become Christians just by speaking Bible verses out of context to them. So, when the atheist asks “do you have any evidence for God’s existence?” or “do you have any evidence for Jesus’ resurrection?”, their response is to quote Bible verses to the atheist, which have nothing to do with those topics. Christianity has lost so much influence in the culture under their approach, which is not even Biblical. (Mat 12:38–41)

These approaches to evangelism are not used in any other area of human endeavor. No one replies to questions about auto mechanics, or software engineering, or gardening, or cooking, by spouting Bible verses. In literally every other area of human endeavor, the laws of logic and supporting evidence are seen as assets when making claims to know something about the world to someone who disagrees with you.

Feminism, Sex and Marriage

First wave feminism simply asked for women to be given the same liberty and opportunity as men. That was good. But later versions of destroyed all distinctions between men and women. By destroying femininity, feminism directed women away from the traditional life plan of marriage, children and home-making.

Feminism changed how women voted. Today, about 75% of young, unmarried women vote for policies like taxpayer-funded birth control, taxpayer-funded abortion, no-fault divorce, affirmative action for women in schools and in the workplace, taxpayer-funded daycare, public schools, single-mother welfare, social security, etc. These policies and programs raised tax rates, and grew government, making it easier for women to have children without having to choose a marriage-ready man she wasn’t attracted to. Instead, she could choose men she was attracted to, and just use government programs as a substitute provider if it didn’t “work out”. Thanks to feminism, we have a 42% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and it’s rising. Few female college graduates are debt-free. About 5% of women emerge from college as virgins.

Under feminism, the traditional male roles and virtues were deemed “sexist”. Women were shamed for choosing early marriage, large families, and stable men who were good at being husbands and fathers. Instead, women today chose men based on appearance. They spend their 20s and early 30s giving men who will not commit to them premarital sex. The men who are getting sex thrown at them have no interest in Judeo-Christian values, chastity, fidelity, commitment or raising children. Women mistake the men’s willingness to have sex and cohabitate as signs that they are close to marriage. But in fact, chasing the hot bad boys just eats up the chastity, youth and beauty that could have made them interesting to the marriage-minded men they scorned. Later on, they realize that they’ve wasted their 20s on bad boys, but by then they are not attractive for marriage.

What has the response been to feminism from pastors and churches? They accept the anti-male, anti-marriage policies, that came out of feminism. They accept the promiscuity, and the marriage-delaying that came from feminism. Today, pastors just try to bully the men who were passed over to marry the women who had previously rejected them, despite the higher risk of divorce caused by the women’s past behavior.

Policy and current events

Most pastors are anti-intellectual, and they believe that this is a virtue, since they are focused narrowly on what the Bible explicitly says. Because of this, they aren’t able to understand which laws and policies allow Christianity and Christian families to flourish. I agree that what the Bible speaks about is of the highest importance. But we need to understand how to achieve the goals that the Bible states, as well as how to counter the forces that threaten the achievement of those goals.

For example, Christianity thrives when marriage thrives. Christianity is passed on from parents to children. Anything that threatens marriage, or interferes with parental authority, weakens the influence of Christianity. So, policies like higher taxes, no-fault divorce, SOGI laws, all harm the Christian family, while policies like lower taxes, protections for Christian businesses, protection for Christian schools (statements of faith, moral codes), etc. are all good for Christian families. But most pastors never talk about policies or laws, because they don’t think about how to defend the Christian worldview, how to educate Christian children, how to promote marriage, how promote Christian moral values in the public square. Even protecting the right to life of unborn children is ignored.

As the churches lose relevance, it becomes tempting for pastors to accept what the secular left promotes as good and true and beautiful. The big one is pastors pushing for redistribution of wealth by the secular government as a solution to “poverty”, even though the Bible only sanctions voluntary charity. This diminishes the cultural relevance of the church and elevates the secular government. SBC leaders like Russell Moore champion amnesty for refugees and unskilled illegal immigrants, not realizing how it will harm Christian institutions and values down the road to import large numbers of people who will eventually vote for policies like higher taxes, bigger government, etc.

The woman who argued for legalizing abortion at the Supreme Court

Sarah Weddington argued for Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court, and the majority of the male justices agreed with her. So, I thought it would be interesting to dig around and see what kind of woman she was.

United Methodist Pastor Kid Sarah Weddington

First, a bit about her background. She was a United Methodist pastor’s kid, and a leader in her church.

From far-left Wikipedia:

Sarah Ragle was born on February 5, 1945, in Abilene, Texas, to Lena Catherine and Herbert Doyle Ragle, a Methodist minister. As a child, she was… president of the Methodist youth fellowship at her church, played the organ, sang in the church choir…

Weddington graduated with a bachelor’s degree in English from McMurry University… [S]he entered the University of Texas Law School and graduated in 1967. In 1967, during her third year of law school, Weddington conceived with Ron Weddington and travelled to Mexico for an illegal abortion. From 1968 to 1974, she was married to Weddington. After her divorce, Sarah continued to live alone in Austin, Texas.

She had an illegal abortion in Mexico.

This is the kind of man she chose to have unprotected sex with before marriage:

Ron Weddington, one of the attorneys who drafted the brief for abortion rights in Roe V Wade, wrote a private letter to President-elect Bill Clinton arguing for the state to use abortion as population control. This letter was written in 1992:

“[Y]ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country.

[…]It’s time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible.

Ron Weddington is the husband of Sarah Weddington, one of the two lawyers who argued for abortion in Roe Vs. Wade.

She chose this man out of all the men in the world, probably because he wasn’t going to lead her spiritually or morally. She wanted to escape Christian morality and to escape being judged by Christians for her choice of man, and her choices with sex.

This is an interesting insight into her motives from a student admirer:

One of my all-time favorite lecturers was Sarah Weddington, the attorney who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision.

[…]After a couple of years, I… secured a date for my mentor to speak on campus. The lecture was brilliant. The event was successful, even though a few pro-life demonstrators stood quietly protesting outside the venue.

After the event, a group of students and I took her to dinner and were entertained by more exciting, interesting stories. Over dessert, I asked, “whatever happened to Roe?”

Sarah’s gracious demeanor and beautiful smile changed instantaneously.

“She’s a stupid piece of white trash. She’s pro-life and a Christian,” she snarled throwing in a few decidedly ungracious and unrepeatable curse words. “She’s a piece of trash. She was stupid when we found her and she’s worse now.”

Most people know that Weddington lied about “Roe”. Roe never had an abortion. Her child was given up for adoption. Weddington and Coffee just used Roe to get the abortion law they wanted.

By the way, Linda Coffee was also attending church at the time she filed the abortion legal challenge, as the pro-abortion Dallas Morning News reports. Today, Linda Coffee is living with a woman. No husband, and apparently no kids – just like Weddington. This is the feminist vision, complete with lesbianism, sold to women in those left-wing seminaries we call “universities”. And it’s worse in non-STEM departments.

Something else about Sarah Weddington. You might have read my previous post on the research about the link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Her induced abortion prior to pregnancy is a textbook case for breast cancer, and that’s exactly what happened to her:

After arguing for abortion, Weddington eventually became an advisor to President Jimmy Carter and pushed for research on breast cancer, a disease from which she is a survivor. Ironically, dozens of studies have linked induced abortions to an increasing risk of breast cancer and a top researcher says more than 300,000 women have died from breast cancer as a result of having abortions.

I think her abortion crusade was just her attempt to make what she did legal, so that she would no longer be judged for her bad choices with men, sex and pregnancy.

The hero of young feminists

Why do people listen to people like Weddington, who have failed at life so badly? Is she really a hero of “women’s rights”? Sex-selection abortions caused the deaths of 46 million unborn girls in India. Is that a triumph of “women’s rights”? All pro-abortion women support sex-selection abortions – and they are most often used on unborn girls, who are the “wrong sex”.

What Weddington did was not about “women’s rights”. It was about escaping moral judgement for her actions. Feminists today have so much hatred of being judged. They want to make poor decisions with men and sex, and then force people to not judge them for it. They want to chase hookup sex with hot bad boys. They want taxpayer-funded contraceptives and abortions. They want to eliminate any moral judgement of abortion. They want to silence the responsible, moral people. Feminists like Weddington call the moral, responsible people who disagree with women’s poor choices “trash”.

Abortion Women Feminists Feminism

Can chivalrous Christian conservatives end abortion?

Most Christian men don’t have the courage to challenge women like Weddington about their atheist, feminist, socialist worldviews. Look at the photo of the good United Methodist pastor’s kid and church leader. She’s so pretty. Men are very foolish. They judge women by their appearances. A pretty girl must be good, so they don’t want to disagree with her or persuade her or lead her on moral or spiritual issues.

Christian / conservative men think it’s “chivalrous” to make pretty women into victims. That’s why she was probably never confronted about atheism, feminism and socialism by her United Methodist pastor parents or church leaders. To confront a woman about her beliefs with reason and evidence is “harsh” and “unchivalrous”. Then at college, she was indoctrinated by those English professors and their red marking pens. She wanted good grades, so she wrote what they told her to write. She had never learned to develop her own views with reason and evidence. She just wanted to be liked. This was not a STEM program connected to the real world. She never formed her feminist pro-abortion convictions by writing code or doing lab work. Her non-STEM education was just indoctrination. Indoctrination that left her a murderer, a spinster and separated from God for eternity.

Nothing that’s going on in our churches teaches men to challenge young women about the atheism, feminism and socialism. The pious, chivalrous United Methodist pastors and parents were in a position to stop Sarah Weddington. But her parents and pastors failed to defeat ideologies like atheism, feminism and socialism with her. They were probably just focused on piety, feelings and community. They were probably just happy to have a pretty girl in their home and church. They probably didn’t want her to stress her out with having to learn logic, evidence or apologetics. They probably thought women were too dumb to learn those things, and put them into practice. Just send her to English professors and law school to be radicalized.

Social conservatives only want to stop abortion if it can be done in a way that allows women to keep radical feminism and the Sexual Revolution. The delaying marriage for careers must continue, they say. The shunning of spiritual and moral men must continue, they say. The drunken hook-ups with hot bad boys must continue, they say. Hot bad boys will change into good Christian husbands after they get hook-up sex, they say. No need to confront Sarah Weddington about her worldview with reason and evidence. That is too heavy-handed. That is not chivalrous.

And that’s why abortion is still legal.